Yesterday Green Party candidate Rachael Goldsmith (pictured above) published a lengthy public response aimed at trying to quell fears and criticisms of the new abortion policy that the Greens announced last Friday.
The problem is that Goldsmith’s comments actually make things even murkier, and raise some very serious questions about what exactly is going on here.
Her response is titled: “The Green Party policy to make abortion safe and legal”
Straight away this statement, and what it proposes should be raising serious red flags for any thinking New Zealander.
Do the Greens truly believe that abortion is currently illegal in New Zealand, or that it is inaccessible for NZ women?
Because, clearly, neither of these claims is true.
No woman who has an abortion while following the basic legal framework that exists in this country is doing anything illegal – they are operating well within the bounds of the law, so there is no law breaking going on at all.
And with almost 15,000 abortions in New Zealand last year alone, and one of the higher abortion rates in the world, it is equally false to claim that access to abortion is an issue in New Zealand.
Do the Greens also really believe that abortion is unsafe in New Zealand? Because that is definitely what that statement above indicates.
I am almost 40 years old, and I cannot recall any abortion deaths in my lifetime in this country, so why exactly are the Greens now claiming that abortion is so unsafe that the regulations surrounding it need to be changed?
And if it’s that unsafe, then how does loosening regulations actually help to ensure it becomes safer?!
Of all the political parties, the Greens should understand the most about how dangerous deregulation can be.
Deregulation in the environmental and commercial sector has resulted in all sorts of serious issues and harms, and yet here they are now, trying to convince the New Zealand public that it will be safer for women if we loosen and remove existing safeguards and deregulate the practice of abortion in this country.
This makes absolutely no sense.
It is precisely this sort of loosing of regulations that resulted in the abortion clinic run by Kermit Gosnell – a place dubbed ‘the house of horrors‘ because of the truly horrific things that took place, and the female patient deaths that happened there.
Legislators in Kermit Gosnell’s home state used the exact same reasoning that the Greens are now trying to employ with their policy; claiming that basic regulatory protections were an impediment to women’s health and reproductive freedoms – so those laws were struck down, with disastrous effect.
So, if the Greens are in fact wrong when they claim that abortion is currently illegal and dangerous in NZ, then what possible good reason could there be for changing the current law?
Over the weekend the President of the NZ General Practitioners Council told the media that: “the current law seems to be working effectively.”
So what conceivable reason could there for a change then?
Unless of course this is actually a policy that has been crafted by the extreme abortion activist organisation ALRANZ, and they are simply using the Greens as a willing conduit to introduce an extreme abortion law into this country.
Two of the key Green candidates involved in this new policy are both officially connected to ALRANZ – one of them, who is a key architect of this new policy, even states that she is a current spokesperson for ALRANZ on her official Green Party bio.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what is going on here.
There are also other troubling aspects of Rachael Goldsmith’s latest public statements on the new policy.
Like her attempt to clarify the Greens position on abortion on the grounds of disability.
Their original policy wording left the door wide open for the aborting of persons with disabilities after 20 weeks (because it failed to specifically exclude persons with disability, and instead opted for the subjective term ‘severe fetal abnormalities’).
Apparently what the Greens actually meant to say was “an unsurvivable condition which is incompatible with life”.
The question that springs to mind here is: why didn’t the actual policy document clearly state this instead of opting for a more problematically loose terminology? And responding by saying ‘this is just a policy document, it can be amended later’ is simply not good enough when you are talking about a policy as serious as this (literally ‘life and death’) that is being presented in an election year.
This sort of sloppy approach to policy writing is not only irresponsible to the common good, but it also totally makes a mockery of the claim that this is a well thought out policy from the Greens.
Then under point number 5, Goldsmith tries to reassure the public that their policy is not abortion on demand up to 20 weeks, even though she subsequently refers to it as a policy focused on“easier access” to abortion.
Well, based on the current law, wouldn’t the only way to actually create “easier access” be to introduce abortion on demand?
There is currently very little in the way of restrictions on access to abortion, and later in the policy the Greens state that counselling won’t even be a legal requirement under their policy – so how can this policy be anything other than abortion on demand?
(For those who are unaware, ‘abortion on demand’ is simply abortion on request.)
Observant readers will also notice that Goldsmith refers to their policy as allowing early medical abortions – but the current law already allows these, so, once again, why is this law even necessary?
(By the way, the claim that early medical abortions are automatically safer is not borne out by the facts, which show that they are far more likely to result in subsequent complications that surgical ones are.)
With each passing day this policy is getting murkier and murkier, and more and more questions about what exactly is going on here are starting to come to the fore.